Have you ever met an impatient child? Seen a child who throws fits when he/she can’t watch their favorite show? Or one who cries in the mall because “Mommy’s taking too long?” Well, teaching a child to be patient could benefit them in the future and save a parent from all the stress and anger of temper tantrums.

The “Marshmallow Test” was a study conducted by Walter Mischel and Ebbe B. Ebbesen at Stanford University in 1970. In the test, preschoolers were placed in a room alone with only a desk, a chair, and a plate with a marshmallow. The child was given one marshmallow and was promised another one if he/she waited for the instructor to come back. The instructor planned on returning to the room in 15 minutes to give the child another treat if they waited the period of time. The test left each child with the option to either have 1 now, or 2 later. The goal of the test was to investigate how long a child would wait to eat the marshmallow. Some children ate the marshmallow immediately, others fought the urge for some time, while others made it long enough to receive the second marshmallow. In the experiment of more than 600 children, a few children ate the marshmallow immediately and a third waiting long enough to gain another marshmallow.

But, the Marshmallow test did not become famous for it’s delicious name, but instead it is known for it’s follow-up results. The follow-up study found that unexpected correlations began to show between the time it took the child to wait to eat with their level of success in the future. In 1988, the first follow-up occurred showing that “preschool children who delayed gratification longer in the self-imposed delay paradigm, were described more than 10 years later by their parents as adolescents who were significantly more competent” (Mischel, Walter). The second follow-up, which occurred two years after the first, showed that the delay also correlated with SAT scores. The longer the delay, the higher the score. 

Even though the outcome of this test can interest us and maybe even influence our future decisions, we must remember that, correlation does not equal causation. Although those who waited for their second treat had higher SAT scores, the results does not prove much. Other factors could have altered the study like the role of chance that has effect on every experiment, but also, the University of Rochester study suggests that “some children may have given up because they simply didn’t believe the researcher would give them that second treat.” Other third variables could’ve been the child’s hungry level, the child’s age, what happened in the child’s life between the study and their SATs, and while many other factors could’ve came into play.

But, in conclusion we can all say that this was a pretty tasty test. To see the experiment, watch the video below:

More Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/magazine/we-didnt-eat-the-marshmallow-the-marshmallow-ate-us.html?_r=0

http://jamesclear.com/delayed-gratification